Madras High Court
V.Subiarun vs The Managing Director on 25 January, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3906 and 3909 of 2021
V.Subiarun ... Petitioner
versus
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
th
4 Floor, CMDA Tower – 2,
Egmore,
Chennai.
2. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
Madurai – 20.
3. The District Manager/Deputy Collector,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
Tuticorin,
Tuticorin District. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned order in Proc.No.M1/952/2019
dated 06.10.2020 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as
illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service with all other monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jameel Arasu
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed as against the order of the first
respondent dated 06.10.2020, in and by which, the first respondent
relieved the petitioner from service and also for a consequential
direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with
all other monetary benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant
Manager (Accounts-II) on contract basis at consolidated pay vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
proceedings of the first respondent dated 19.06.2013. Thereafter, he
was posted at Tuticorin District. On 06.09.2020, while he was
verifying the sales value and the stock balance, he found that there was
a shortage of Rs.1,74,95,810/- in Shop No.9991 and he also reported
the same to the second respondent. However, the first respondent, vide
order dated 06.10.2020, relieved the petitioner from service, without
issuing any charge memo or conducting any departmental proceedings.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the first respondent, without conducting any enquiry or
issuing any show cause notice, relieved the petitioner from service and
the impugned order was not served on the petitioner and it was served
only to his E-mail. Further, the first respondent failed to follow the
procedure mentioned in Circular dated 17.06.2020 in
Na.Ka.No.R-2/14589/2018 dated 21.01.2019. Therefore, the order
impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. In support of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
the contentions, the learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the
Judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 660
(V.L.Lakshmanakumar vs. The District Manager, TASMAC Limited,
Madurai District).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the petitioner, being the Assistant Manager (Accounts), was duty
bound to supervise the stocks of various TASMAC shops situated in
and around Tuticorin District every day. On surprise inspection
conducted by the special squad in Shop No.9991 of Arumuganeri,
Thoothukudi District, it was found that a huge misappropriation took
place to the tune of Rs.1,57,95,810/-. Since the petitioner failed in his
duty in verifying the stock of Shop No.9991, there was a loss to the
tune of Rs.1,57,95,810/-. Hence, the petitioner was removed from
service. He further submits that the petitioner was employed only on
contract basis and he has no right to claim for reinstatement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
5. The learned Senior Counsel by referring the Code of
Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts in Tamil Nadu State
Marketing Corporation Limited – 2014 submits that the word
“Employee” is defined as full time employees, part time employees,
persons engaged on ad-hoc, or temporary, or casual, or contract basis
including employees from TEXCO, individuals on deputation from the
Government (Centre/State) and other organisations, and individuals on
probation or under-training, including ex-employees, therefore, the
petitioner also comes under the category of an Employee and he is
entitled for an opportunity of hearing before removal.
6. This Court considered the submission made on either side.
7. By the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner,
who was working as an Assistant Manager (Accounts-II) on contract
basis at consolidated pay, was relieved from service with effect from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
06.10.2020. By the same order, another Assistant Manager was also
placed in full additional charge in the place of the petitioner.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has
been passed without following the principles of natural justice and
without conducting any enquiry. Though it is contended by the learned
Senior Counsel that the procedure contemplated in Circular dated
17.06.2020 issued by the first respondent was not complied with, the
same is not placed before this Court.
9. As per a Circular dated 10.01.2018, the Assistant Manager
(Accounts) are engaged only for the accounts work and other related
works. Admittedly, there was a shortage of stock to the tune of
Rs.1,56,38,250/- in Shop No.9991 and the same was deducted by the
Internal Audit Department on 25.09.2020. The case of the petitioner is
that the Internal Auditors have to conduct physical verification in each
and every shop on monthly basis and the Internal Audit Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
had not found any shortage in the inspection conducted in the month of
July 2020. While so, there cannot be a shortage of stock to the tune of
Rs.1,56,38,250/- in September 2020.
10. The petitioner also claims that he was verifying the daily
SMS Figure sent by the shop personnel regarding the sales value and
cross checking the same with the closing balance. The petitioner had
also deducted some difference of stock in Shop No.9991 as
Rs.1,74,95,810/- on 06.09.2020 and also informed the same to the
second respondent/the Regional Manager, Madurai, by way of a report.
The said report is not placed before this Court and no reference to the
date of the report.
11. Though the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis, he
is held responsible for the shortage amount in a shop and relieved from
service by the order impugned in this writ petition. When the
Management is imposing a major punishment on the petitioner, in all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
fairness, the respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry and taken
a decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
12. The Allahabad High Court, in Munni Poonam vs. State of
U.P. And three others (W.A.No.3061 of 2021) held that in the event
respondents found that there was some adverse report with regard to
petitioner's working in the institution, she ought to have been
confronted with such material and only after an opportunity in that
regard, a decision could have been taken whether or not to continue
petitioner's contractual engagement and as this course has not been
adopted, then, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
13. In this case, the petitioner has been relieved from service
without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of
hearing. On this ground alone, this Court is inclined to allow the writ
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the
first respondent dated 06.10.2020 is hereby set aside. The respondents
are directed to conduct an enquiry and take a decision afresh, after
providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise
shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.01.2022
ogy
Index : Yes / No.
Internet: Yes / No.
To
1. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
th
4 Floor, CMDA Tower – 2,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
Madurai – 20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
3. The District Manager/Deputy Collector,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation (TASMAC),
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
W.P.(MD)No.4782 of 2021
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
